Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boston Replacing Microsoft Exchange With Google Apps

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the heard-new-york-liked-microsoft-too dept.

Google 251

netbuzz writes "The city of Boston, which employs 20,000 people, has become the latest large organization to switch from Microsoft Exchange to Google Apps. The city estimates that the move will save it $280,000 a year. Microsoft's reaction? 'We believe the citizens of Boston deserve cloud productivity tools that protect their security and privacy. Google's investments in these areas are inadequate, and they lack the proper protections most organizations require.' More and more customers aren't buying that FUD." Hopefully they'll be more satisfied than Los Angeles was (PDF).

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So, when are they switching to Office 365? (1, Interesting)

UneducatedSixpack (2829861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43688833)

Seems like a pattern. Go google then go microsoft.

Google Docs and Drive are down... (2, Insightful)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689063)

Meanwhile, in delicious irony, Google Docs and Drive are down and inaccessible.

"Google Drive documents list goes empty for users "
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57583952-93/google-drive-documents-list-goes-empty-for-users/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=statusnet [cnet.com]

https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=google%20drive&src=typd [twitter.com]

Re:Google Docs and Drive are down... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689153)

Working just fine for me. Just uploaded a distributed viru... I mean, a perfectly harmless PDF file that has no payload specially-crafted to attack Google's infrastructure using hitherto-unheard-of security flaws. No, no such payload at all. And it worked perfectly fine then. Can't imagine why it broke now.

Re:Google Docs and Drive are down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689477)

which is why desktop cloud services really could use an onsite - call it a 'caching' server for both the apps and the data storage - with immediate sync or when possible. I'd imagine MS would jump on that

Re:Google Docs and Drive are down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689805)

they are ready have it its called branch cache

What they should have said was (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43688869)

What they should have said was, "We believe the citizens of Boston deserve the productivity gains that come from the ability to wildcard search through emails."

Good for them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43688881)

They've had a hard time of it lately.

Good (3, Interesting)

Ziggitz (2637281) | about a year and a half ago | (#43688907)

Google apps aren't really that powerful, but then I've never considered any of Microsoft's office products to really be professional tools. Even in college when I wanted to produce papers I'd use some laTeX or DITA editor. Word, Excel and the rest always felt amateurish. If you're going to use poor amateurish WYSIWYG tools you might as well use the free ones.

Re:Good (4, Informative)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689219)

Word is fairly underpowered for professional writing, but if you were an accountant, you'd be hard-pressed to find a replacement to Excel.

Microsoft Office's professional products are more Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, and Access. Word is just something to round out their offerings, an easy-to-use, amateurish but sufficiently featureful product that'll get their foot in the door.

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689577)

Excel is pretty good. (I didn't know I could say anything nice about a Microsoft product.)
If you walk past my office, and hear me swearing at my computer chances are I am using word. If you hear me saying "Stop fu*king helping me!" then you know for sure.
It has gotten so bad that when i have to write documentation, I do all my writing in something simple like notepad++, then copy and paste into word. do a little formatting, maybe a screenshot or two, save and send. This method makes Word a lot less painful.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689691)

If you hear me saying "Stop fu*king helping me!" then you know for sure.

You do know that you can customize features like the one you're bitching about? You do know you can turn them off, right? Indeed most of the things that people bitch about with Word are completely customizable. But don't let reality get in the way of your Fan Boi rant...

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689753)

How many times should you learn a different way to customize all the same features?

Re:Good (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about a year and a half ago | (#43690191)

But don't let reality get in the way of your Fan Boi rant...

You know what you call someone a fan boy, you lose all credibility.

But for the record, I believe in using the best tool for the job. In my experience Word is almost never the best tool. The one time that it does beat other tools is when I need to pass around a document, with people making changes. (I think google Docs might be better for this, but company security policy prevents its use.) I have Linux machines, Windows machines, and Macs. How am I a fan boy?

Re:Good (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689707)

Take some courses on how to use word.

It has a lot of powerful features that are worth using, that are in no way obvious what they do, or how they work, and you don't even know what it's capable of unless someone shows you.

We (a university) offer a first year course that covers the basics of Word and Excel for just this reason, and it's narrowly focused on the academic world.

Re: Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43690301)

Just don't try to use excel to balance books or budgets. UK found out the hard way that a 15 year old floating point bug throws your calculations off a lot.

Re:Good (0)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689965)

If I were an accountant, I'd want to use something like Quantrix Modeller, not a toy like Excel. Or possibly something a bit more tailored to my specific domain.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689471)

You seem to be confusing professional with academic. It's hardly a big surprise you used LaTeX at college. It would be a lot more surprising if you'd been a professional using it.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689811)

I'm a professional using it, and DocBook too, depending on the requirements of the project.

I will say that I'm proud of MS for adding cross-references and ligatures, but ligatures are off by default (why?) and you have to go into some buried properties form to turn them on. That's crap.

LaTeX is just awesome. The output is always beautiful, and modern LaTeX editors may as well be WYSIWYG... the stuff compiles in a split second and you can jump between output and source effortlessly.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689479)

And who are you that we should care if you've never considered any of Microsoft's office products to really be professional tools?

Re:Good (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689917)

I format all my papers with HTML and CSS.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43690269)

Yes, that is why Latex is sooo popular. Slashdot is hilarious.

Why is the FUD FUD? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43688913)

Still sounds pretty valid to me.

Re:Why is the FUD FUD? (1, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43688949)

No shit. I don't even use google for my personal email. I have an account...its where I let the spam go.

Microsoft, as much as I dislike exchange, is right here. Its not like there are not many alternatives, both free and commercially supported, which could be migrated to if they really wanted to drop that fee. However, going to a third party controlled cloud? Not just that, but the major one that so many people are using that it is, quite litterally, one of the biggest and juiciest targets in the world?

No thanks.

Re:Why is the FUD FUD? (3, Interesting)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689045)

I've read Google's privacy policy. To say privacy is a concern with Google's services is not FUD. It's a gross understatement.

Re:Why is the FUD FUD? (5, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689177)

The issue is that Microsoft's privacy track record is worse.

When George W. Bush demanded all search engines hand over search data tied to IP addresses for all users, Google was the only search engine to refuse. Microsoft handed that data right over.

Microsoft has ad campaigns suggesting Google employees are actively reading your email, even though they know that is an outright lie, the very definition of FUD.

Even worse, Microsoft is a hypocrite because they scan your email to serve up contextual ads as well.

Microsoft also has a patent on selling your private data to the highest bidder.

Google isn't giving your private data to anyone. They just serve you ads. Microsoft outright sells your data to people without your knowledge. And when they know they can't compete with Google on price, their only response is FUD.

http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/ [rt.com]

Re:Why is the FUD FUD? (5, Funny)

adc.m (117676) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689711)

When George W. Bush demanded all search engines hand over search data tied to IP addresses for all users, Google was the only search engine to refuse. Microsoft handed that data right over.

Of course, this was MSN search in those days, so there were only about 14 people's search records apart from a few million searches for "google toolbar"

Re:Why is the FUD FUD? (1)

xrmb (2854715) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689183)

Which privacy policy did you read... the one from your gmail account or google apps?

Re:Why is the FUD FUD? (4, Interesting)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689497)

I switched my company over to Google Apps.
30 Users. With Drive for sharing, Groups and aliases. It works really well for us with extremely simple administration and really good uptime.
Simple, Flexible and inexpensive.

Re:Why is the FUD FUD? (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689579)

It lacks specifics and relies on fear, uncertainty and doubt. Even if the conclusion goes along with facts, the actual argument used can still be FUD.

Re:Why is the FUD FUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689871)

WTF: "Even if the conclusion goes along with facts, the actual argument used can still be FUD."

No.

Not a smart idea (2)

elabs (2539572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43688915)

Organizations get pretty desperate to cut costs but when they do things like this they end up spending WAY more, both in time and in money.

Re:Not a smart idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689003)

Nice try, Microsoft.

Re:Not a smart idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689583)

Nice try, Google.

Re:Not a smart idea (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689119)

I guess it depends on what you expect out of an email system. One thing is for sure, Exchange was always a rickety beast, and the level of codependency between Exchange and other elements of Windows over the last few versions have gone through the roof. For basic email and scheduling, I'd gladly leave Exchange behind, but we have a government contract (I'm in Canada) which strictly prohibits the storage of certain highly sensitive data outside of Canada, and the last time I contacted Google about it, they just brushed it off. So, here I am, getting ready to upgrade to Exchange 2013.

Re:Not a smart idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689761)

Interesting. I have a university Google Apps account that I understand has the requirement in the contract that Google stores all of the data within the United States. I guess Google is based in the US so that may be easier for them than keeping everything within Canada, but it seems like they should be able to do it.

Re:Not a smart idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43690321)

It's so that US government can snoop on your data automagically.
All foreign data stored in US is snoopable by US agencies by law.
The reason it is stated in the contract is just another way of saying the same, without mentioning it directly.
Everything you store is indexed and preyed open if encrypted. You can bet on the new datacenters in Utah.

Microsft are the acknowledged experts on FUD (3, Insightful)

accessbob (962147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43688921)

Get the Facts guys...

Microsoft's real reaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43688929)

Microsoft's reaction? "*heavy breathing* Grrrrrr... I am... very... VERY... displeased with your decision, Boston. *more heavy breathing* VERY... VERY... *turns to lackey* YOU! Start running ballistic calculations for my transcontinental chair! NOW!"

Only $280k? (4, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43688943)

I suspect that number is wildly conservative. That's crazy, when you consider the costs associated with:

* Multiple FT "Exchange Admins"
* Needing people on-staff who actually understand email
* If they were using something like Forefront and/or additional spam services as well (additional $$$)
* Dozens of servers they no longer need to maintain maintain and replace
* Tens of terabytes of fast, redundant storage they no longer need to keep on-premises

Due to the cost of such a large migration (will they be migrating existing mail, I wonder, or just keeping it on a network-mapped share for archival access?) I have to wonder how long this will take.

I'd have thought the per-year savings would be closer to a million than a quarter mil, personally.

Re:Only $280k? (2)

DaHat (247651) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689061)

TFA says it will still cost the city ~$800k to make the move... the $280k is reported to be the savings from dropping what they are currently doing.

That's a whole lot of money to what? Move a large bit of data to the cloud, retire a number of on-prem servers and re-train people?

Re:Only $280k? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689141)

that's NOT a lot of money, and 280k (barely $1 per user per month), is a small drop in the city budget.... so not worth the switch...

Re:Only $280k? (1)

DaHat (247651) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689511)

I was referring to the 800k they are spending to move as the 'lot of money'.

Re:Only $280k? (2)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689103)

You're assuming that the Exchange servers are handled in house. That's not necessarily the case.

Re:Only $280k? (2, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689239)

I'm still waiting for the Linux version of Active Directory. Until then, I don't think they're going to have an easy time moving away from Exchange.

Re:Only $280k? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689941)

Samba 4?

Re:Only $280k? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43690031)

A Linux version of Active Directory you say? http://www.europe.redhat.com/promo/ipa/ and http://freeipa.org/page/Main_Page

Re:Only $280k? (2)

timmyf2371 (586051) | about a year and a half ago | (#43690183)

I believe Samba [theregister.co.uk] now supports Active Directory.

But AD on Linux doesn't equate to an easy migration from Exchange. In the business world, Exchange is still king and the integration between email, calendaring and the Outlook client has not yet been replicated in an effective manner by its competitors.

Of note... (4, Interesting)

somarilnos (2532726) | about a year and a half ago | (#43688945)

The link that suggests that Los Angeles was unhappy with their switch to Google does not, in fact, say that. The link is to a letter of a consumer group bitching to LA about their switch to Google. Given, by all accounts, things did not go smoothly, but maybe a better link would be this? [consumerwatchdog.org]

Re:Of note... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689065)

An equally interesting link would be: http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/ [techrights.org]

Where they show that Consumer Watchdog is actually a PR/lobbying firm hired by MS.

Re:Of note... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43690275)

Well no. If you read it, they're vaguely linked. But kudos, Google needed the fellatio.

I'm not suprised (3, Informative)

prelelat (201821) | about a year and a half ago | (#43688947)

I do think that office 365 is a very nice response to cloud office suites but unless there is still a problem since that 2011 letter about the LA contract I don't know how they will break into that market. Google is a name that most IT people think of when they think of cloud processing suites. We started using 365 about 6-8 months ago and it works fantastically in my opinion. I also do know that other people have gone with google though because it's a big name and it does what it says it does. As far as I know there haven't been any complaints about google.

Does anyone know what happened between google and the city of L.A. after this was released? I hadn't heard about it. I would be interested to know what the security issues they had were and if they were able to be resolved. This letter is considerably old in terms of technology advancements.

Re:I'm not suprised (4, Informative)

desman (213514) | about a year and a half ago | (#43690073)

I couldn't find anything recent, but this has a summary: http://arstechnica.com/business/2011/10/google-apps-hasnt-met-lapds-security-requirements-city-demands-refund/

It also appears that consumerwatchdog.org may have been hired by Microsoft to attack Google: http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/

Other MS products? (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a year and a half ago | (#43688961)

I'm curious are their client machines windows boxes? Are they then using active directory and what kind of file servers are they using?

Re:Other MS products? (1)

kevkingofthesea (2668309) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689057)

From the article:

"Boston officials said they vetted Google and are satisfied with the security protections that come with Google Apps for e-mail and document storage. Also, Boston isn’t completely cutting ties with Microsoft, as it will continue to use its other products, such as the Windows operating system on its PCs." (Emphasis mine)

Yeah, they'll save their 280,000, and more (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43688997)

Until Google decides to pull the plug. Beware!

Re:Yeah, they'll save their 280,000, and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689031)

Are you saying Google Apps will bomb?

Re:Yeah, they'll save their 280,000, and more (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689131)

He's saying he's a fucking moron. He's just doing it in an obtuse, roundabout way.

Re:Yeah, they'll save their 280,000, and more (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689519)

Why don't you take a gander at their history of dumping anything that doesn't pan out in their Excel 'what-if' analyses? And I haven't fucked any morons... Wanna be the first?

Re:Yeah, they'll save their 280,000, and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689371)

No, he's saying that Google will bomb Google Apps.

Remember, Google is just an advertising company. If they can't make any profit selling the tools (which they never have, and probably never will), and can't insert ads into the documents (which they will never be allowed to do), then they will can it.

End of story.

Re:Yeah, they'll save their 280,000, and more (4, Funny)

OakDragon (885217) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689431)

Are you saying Google Apps will bomb?

Too soon!

Re:Yeah, they'll save their 280,000, and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689943)

Thank you; you seem to be the only poster who haz the humor detector.

Re:Yeah, they'll save their 280,000, and more (3, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689567)

Considering Boston are paying them for the service, the likelihood of them dropping the email service is no higher than the likelihood of their ISP dropping their connectivity...
In either case, since the services are standards based they can easily migrate to an alternative, should the need arise.

MS could just as easily drop support for exchange, leaving them with a security nightmare that is intentionally difficult to migrate away from.

Re:Yeah, they'll save their 280,000, and more (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689729)

You say that but Google seems to randomly pick what they'll shut down. Userbase means nothing. So who knows what'll happen and that's a bad thing for any company.

Just a thought (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689015)

Maybe Boston should worry about saving their city instead of saving a paltry quarter million dollars on a stupid exchange system.

Re:Just a thought (2)

heezer7 (708308) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689133)

Really? :hangs head:

Re:Just a thought (2)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689193)

Maybe Boston should worry about saving their city instead of saving a paltry quarter million dollars on a stupid exchange system.

Because their email system caused or allowed the bombings?

If we used the "why are we doing X when we have not cured cancer / stopped war / my favorite issue" argument for everything... then all of humankind's effort would be placed into a single thing... leaving us without food, housing, clothing or electricity.

Out of the frying pan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689093)

Out of the expensive, bug-prone insecure frying pan into the plug-pulling privacy invading oven. Happy cooking.

GAPPS Wholly Inadequate for Enterprise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689137)

I own a business with a little over 100 employees, and we did a test pilot for GAPPS to replace exchange, and it was an unmitigated disaster, especially for mobile devices, which were constantly being flagged as "suspicious," resulting in the users account being locked for seemingly random periods of time lasting from one day to 3 days, and even as administrators we had NO WAY to unlock the account. No way at all, and Google customer support refuses to unlock accounts locked due to "suspicious" activity, which apparently includes logging on from a mobile device while simultaneously logged into the web interface.

The whole thing cost countless hours of productivity and lost revenue. Never again.

Re:GAPPS Wholly Inadequate for Enterprise (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689173)

That's some pretty bizarre behavior, considering, at least on my personal Google account, I've been on GMail and Google Docs on my desktop, notebook, iPhone and Nexus 7 all at the same bloody time without any issue.

Re:GAPPS Wholly Inadequate for Enterprise (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689211)

I'm pretty sure hundreds of millions of users are logged into Gmail on a web interface while also using their Android phones, and they don't have all their email accounts locked.

I smell a bullshit astroturfer.

Re:GAPPS Wholly Inadequate for Enterprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689455)

So only pro-Google and anti-Microsoft comments need apply?

I bet you do smell a bullshit astroturfer.

Re:GAPPS Wholly Inadequate for Enterprise (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689517)

Making a ridiculous statement that anyone knows is patently false is the reason I'm calling bullshit.

Again, anyone with any smart phone can test this theory that logging into Gmail on your computer and mobile device at the same time does not lock your account.

Re:GAPPS Wholly Inadequate for Enterprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689927)

And we all also know how hard it is to get any support from Google. We all also know that Google Apps is a bit different that personal GMail accounts. And we also all know how to use Google search to find numerous examples of people complaining of the same problem. Here is one of the top results (telling as it is, none of which are from Google support): Google locked a account without notifying me and this is my reply to tech suppor [spiceworks.com]

Re:GAPPS Wholly Inadequate for Enterprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689531)

What type of Astroturfing business do you operate?

Nice reponse (0)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689159)

We believe the citizens of Boston deserve cloud productivity tools that protect their security and privacy. Google's investments in these areas are inadequate, and they lack the proper protections most organizations require.

Marketingspeak as usual, as Microsoft's investments in these areas are worse than inadequate... they are nonexistant.

Re:Nice reponse (1)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689247)

Why do I care what investments anyone is making in cloud security if I buy Exchange and run it on my own local email server? In that case I would only care about what investments my own company is making in security, not what Microsoft or Google are doing.

Re:Nice reponse (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689593)

Why would you not care what microsoft are doing? Would you not care if they decided to stop producing security updates for exchange? Being stuck with a closed source proprietary product that's no longer being updated is not a good situation to be in.

Re:Nice reponse (1)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689833)

The OP was addressing cloud security. If a company runs an internal email server, it doesn't care what Microsoft or Google do with cloud security, since it's not using their cloud services. Securing its email system falls pretty much on the company, not the cloud provider. A part of that security is the security of the software itself, so of course I would still want Exchange security updates, but other than that, I don't give a crap how good the security of those cloud services are. I only care how good my own company's network security is.

Also, I fail to see how being stuck with a closed source proprietary product is any worse than being stuck with a software-as-a-service provider.

A better idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689225)

...would be to hire someone competent in *nix and have them set up a TrustedBSD or SELinux Debian/RHEL server with proper Postfix + SQL (virtual domains) and IMAPS/POP3S access. That way there's no worrying about Google pulling the plug, and no worrying about Microsoft shenanigans either. The worst they'd need to worry about is their sysadmin going rogue, but so long as you pay him (or her! I did a smaller version of this a couple of years ago!) well, that shouldn't be an issue.

Re:A better idea... (1)

michrech (468134) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689317)

In this scenario, there'd be no shared calendering, no contact management, and no remote web access (and those are just the items in Exchange that *I* use). Who knows what other functionality would be missing if people listened to this advice...

Re:A better idea... (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689609)

So run zarafa alongside postfix on your debian/rhel/postfix server... It provides all the features you mention.
Ofcourse, who's to say the users actually want or need any such features? Many only ever use email, and exchange/outlook is about the worst combination available for a pure mail server.

Re:A better idea... (4, Insightful)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689783)

Uh booking meetings in a calendar is ~50% of the average corporate managers daily activity. The other 50% is attending said meetings.

Re:A better idea... (1)

timmyf2371 (586051) | about a year and a half ago | (#43690273)

You're right that a lot of people in corporations will only ever use email, however you will find that many more will also use the calendar features as well as all the other multitude of functionality supported by Exchange & Outlook. And when you have many people needing this functionality, it doesn't make sense to support multiple configurations to support both classes of users.

For many businesses, hiring competent Exchange admins is far easier than hiring multiple admins who specialise in Zarafa & Postfix (more than one specialist will naturally be required for absence cover, so the common belief that one Linux admin can replace multiple Windows admins isn't necessarily true in reality).

Then you have the additional challenge of IT Helpdesk support for users. The majority of outsourced helpdesks will be trained in Exchange/Outlook setups, as will most applicants for in-house support roles. What is the additional cost involved in training helpdesk workers in setting up, troubleshooting and supporting the Zafara Outlook connector and plugins?

First Boston, next the others (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689231)

This is just the first of many state governments that will be abandoning these old, insecure and grossly overpriced Microsoft technologies. There's nothing better than seeing Google beat the shit out of Microsoft.

Could be worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689245)

Could be worse... they could be going to Office 365, like the State of Michigan is doing for its employees.

Postini? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689261)

They killed off one of the better spam filters out there...who's to say once they have all your data, they won't sell it on the open market before killing off those products too? We all know the feds will have an API to see anything they want without a court order...

outlook.com and hotmail.com DO NOT use TLS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689293)

Go to checktls.com and test outlook.com, hotmail.com and gmail.com. Microsoft does not offer STARTLS, but gmail does. How is transferring email in plain text over the Internet for the NSA to funnel secure? In fact it seems that gmail is the only free webmail provider to use TLS. Not even large Canadian ISPs use TLS. Conspiracy?

The PDF linked to the LA implementation... (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689325)

It's interesting to see the kind of convoluted side bar going on with LA. While the TFA pointed out Boston is going to use Google Apps, LA seems to be tied up in CSC drudgery. I can't understand how or why it would be so hard to do this kind of project, I mean I do have experience in this area so it doesn't seem so damn complex. Sure, lots of mailboxes, security requirements but that's done day in and day out. Oh wait, CSC is the sub here LOL, never mind.

Groupwise and CSC in the same project? ... Doomed!

If you follow up on what when on w/ Los Angelas... (1)

aklinux (1318095) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689465)

The difficulty was that the FBI changed the rules after the contract was signed between the City & Google. these rule changes made it virtually impossible for Google to meet the FBI security requirements that were part of the contract. This rule change was not envisioned by either side at the outset.

http://breakinggov.com/2011/12/19/los-angeles-ends-google-apps-for-lapd-decision-bigger-than-you/

Re:If you follow up on what when on w/ Los Angelas (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689603)

Actually, according to the article you supplied a link for, the sticking point that Google failed upon was part of the original requirements. There were changes to some of the FBI's requirements after the signing in 2009, but the changes were not those that Google has failed to deliver upon.

Seems too low for savings (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689493)

I believe the estimated savings are very conservative. Still, the summary is also correct in that Google doesn't appear to have appropriate protections for sensitive government data.

MA has requirements for transmission and storage of personal information ... of course the government is NOT required to follow those standards.

Migrating the data is non-trivial for that number of people.

I bet they will retain some MS-Exchange infrastructure for "critical employee use too."

Of course, I'd swap out both google and microsoft solutions for Zimbra, but that is a different article.

ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43689563)

Good luck with that...from what I've heard it's nothing but a nightmare...people hate google and their apps....

20'000, 280'000 (1)

holophrastic (221104) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689625)

$14

Time to call Jack Abramoff (1)

Geste (527302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689779)

Seriously, we're talking about Boston, Massachusetts here. Get Jack on the horn and activate Citizens Against Government Waste. That'll fix those pesky Googlers!

How well does Google Business work for calendar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43690005)

My understanding is that Google Apps for your Business has some shortcomings (versus Exchange & Outlook) as far as viewing other staff members' calendars for scheduling meetings and seeing availability. But, given that the City of Boston is making the move, I'm beginning to wonder if this is actually the case. Can someone confirm?

FB (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year and a half ago | (#43690041)

I don't give a fuck about Boston anymore. Closing down the city like that, an treating people like shit. Fuck you!

Why so patronizing, MS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43690197)

MS says 'We believe the citizens of Boston deserve cloud productivity tools that protect their security and privacy. Google's investments in these areas are inadequate, and they lack the proper protections most organizations require.'

Why say that goody-goody, patronizing crap? MS, you are understandably pissed off. You also have nothing intelligent to say. Why not just keep quiet? Statements like that are condescending and insulting.

NOAA already went Google.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43690201)

I work for NOAA IT and the entire organization migrated to Google in December 2011. The hardest part of the migration was training users how to use the Google products, even though they work similarly to any other email, calendar, contacts, online document sharing solution out there.

After a year and a half using Google, I have to say I'm pretty happy with their services. Service hiccups are fixed quickly and rarely do they affect all users.

I find the apps to be less mature than MSOffice apps, so occasionally I would edit a document in excel, then import it back to Google, but that's only necessary for rather advanced functionality, or massive amounts of copy-paste that chokes the browser interface.

At the time of the switchover, I was told that of all the cloud storage providers out there in the world, only Google was FIPS-compliant and therefore the only choice for cloud storage for the federal government.

Now I just wish they would whitelist Picasa so we can share photos easily...

Gmail! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43690327)

The article talks about Gmail. I have observed a large technology company switch from Exchange to Gmail (Seagate). It was a success. No problems and Google provides good support to paid customers.

Everyone should consider ditching Exchange. The UI for e-mail and especially calendar in Gmail is way more intuitive than in Exchange.

They will move back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43690363)

My experience with Google Apps is that companies switch expecting it to be the same as Exchange. It is not. several months later they will regret the decision and move back. I have experienced this with several companies both large and small. I have performed those migrations. All are much happier once they are on Office 365. Local exchange servers are going away and going away fast. To me google is NOT the answer.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?